Jump to content

Emmert Gets a Raise


Tigerbelle
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, cole256 said:

For duke possibly. But who cares? Duke damn sure going to get that money. They certainly are getting much more out of the deal. If they me winning yes the back up is going to be vital......And that's Duke. But for a school like us.....what would a couple of final four do for us? How much money is that going to generate?

RJ Hampton is headed overseas to play and he’s a five star. There are other alternatives out there. So did Terrence Ferguson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





28 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

RJ Hampton is headed overseas to play and he’s a five star. There are other alternatives out there. So did Terrence Ferguson. 

Yes Brandon Jennings, and maybe a few others. That's a handful and it's frowned upon. There's a stigma, just like it's a smaller one with out of high school to the NBA. That's my point of the NBA and NFL with the NCAA. It's literally made up so they don't EVER lose power of controlling money they don't deserve. I guarantee if you small schools could allow players to make some money and go to schoolyou'd see Alabama state all of a sudden in the sweet 16

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cole256 said:

There's a stigma, just like it's a smaller one with out of high school to the NBA.

I’m not trying to just be argumentative bro but I swear to you that more and more people are coming around to pay for play. It will come down to athletes leaving or the NCAA and NFL/ NBA cooperating to create farm leagues. 

Read this article and know the NCAA model is about to be turned upside down.  https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/05/25/california-fair-pay-play-act-end-ncaa-amateurism?xid=socialflow_twitter_si&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=si-ncaafb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2019 at 11:43 AM, NoALtiger said:

That can basically be said with any big business entity though. Bet the person who runs General Motors can’t break a car down and rebuild it. The President of Capital Records can’t sing a lick. Etc and so forth.  :)  

Other than no competes and such, most big businesses aren't telling their employees that they can't take advantage of alternate revenue streams. A lot of those people building cars at GM- like a lot of college students who get academic or art scholarships- are allowed to have a side hustle. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

I’m not trying to just be argumentative bro but I swear to you that more and more people are coming around to pay for play. It will come down to athletes leaving or the NCAA and NFL/ NBA cooperating to create farm leagues. 

Read this article and know the NCAA model is about to be turned upside down.  https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/05/25/california-fair-pay-play-act-end-ncaa-amateurism?xid=socialflow_twitter_si&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=si-ncaafb

So California passes a law that gives the  state's schools a huge advantage over other NCAA schools in recruiting?   NCAA gonna allow that?  and worst care out of state schools gonna be forced to play professional/college teams in that state?   And of course the issue that no one is addressing...where does the money come from?  higher ticket prices, student fees, wealthy alums and boosters (the likely source) or maybe tV revenue which might be attractive for a dozen of the schools at most?   

JMO but the idiots in California are gonna ruin a great system that gives tens of thousands of in-state students a free college education in order to help a handful of exceptional athletes who "might" be able to make some outside money.  This whole legislative issue sounds like something that Lavar Ball would be bankrolling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AU64 said:

So California passes a law that gives the  state's schools a huge advantage over other NCAA schools in recruiting?   NCAA gonna allow that?  and worst care out of state schools gonna be forced to play professional/college teams in that state?   And of course the issue that no one is addressing...where does the money come from?  higher ticket prices, student fees, wealthy alums and boosters (the likely source) or maybe tV revenue which might be attractive for a dozen of the schools at most?   

JMO but the idiots in California are gonna ruin a great system that gives tens of thousands of in-state students a free college education in order to help a handful of exceptional athletes who "might" be able to make some outside money.  This whole legislative issue sounds like something that Lavar Ball would be bankrolling. 

In a thread dedicated to the CEO of the NCAA making almost $4 million a year, you're asking where the money's going to come from? 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Other than no competes and such, most big businesses aren't telling their employees that they can't take advantage of alternate revenue streams. A lot of those people building cars at GM- like a lot of college students who get academic or art scholarships- are allowed to have a side hustle. 

That's not a bad point but I wonder how many students at any major college get "academic" scholarships that are anywhere near as lucrative as a full athletic scholarship.      Lots of people are looking at athletic scholarships worth upward of $30-50K per year and comparing that to some art scholarship worth $2500 per year. 

True there are lots of "scholarships" for students at a school like AU but most of them are relatively pocket change compared to the cost of attending school...and I bet if you check rosters, there are more walk-ons playing for Auburn sponsored athletic teams than players on full scholarship.    Athletic scholarship students have about the best possible deal going for a college student...JMO

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

In a thread dedicated to the CEO of the NCAA making almost $4 million a year, you're asking where the money's going to come from? 

$4Million ?   You must be joking.......do you realize how little that is in terms of management salaries ...especially in sports?    or have you done a little math to find out what it would cost a each NCAA school to address some of the schemes being proposed? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AU64 said:

That's not a bad point but I wonder how many students at any major college get "academic" scholarships that are anywhere near as lucrative as a full athletic scholarship.      Lots of people are looking at athletic scholarships worth upward of $30-50K per year and comparing that to some art scholarship worth $2500 per year. 

True there are lots of "scholarships" for students at a school like AU but most of them are relatively pocket change compared to the cost of attending school...and I bet if you check rosters, there are more walk-ons playing for Auburn sponsored athletic teams than players on full scholarship.    Athletic scholarship students have about the best possible deal going for a college student...JMO

A friend of mine got an academic full ride to Vanderbilt. There are tons of them out there. 

Don't you think these are questions you should ask before advocating against change?

I don't understand what walk-ons have to do with anything. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AU64 said:

$4Million ?   You must be joking.......do you realize how little that is in terms of management salaries ...especially in sports?    or have you done a little math to find out what it would cost a each NCAA school to address some of the schemes being proposed? 

No, I'm not joking.

By all means, illuminate me on the math. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, AU64 said:

$4Million ?   You must be joking.......do you realize how little that is in terms of management salaries ...especially in sports?    or have you done a little math to find out what it would cost a each NCAA school to address some of the schemes being proposed? 

Also, citing that exorbitant salaries are the norm across the sports management spectrum really hammers my point home for me, so appreciate the assist. 

Edited by McLoofus
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, AU64 said:

$4Million ?   You must be joking.......do you realize how little that is in terms of management salaries ...especially in sports?    or have you done a little math to find out what it would cost a each NCAA school to address some of the schemes being proposed? 

 

Lol, so with management we are going to compare numbers but not the billions of dollars revenue generated.....You guys take your scholarship and be quiet.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, AU64 said:

So California passes a law that gives the  state's schools a huge advantage over other NCAA schools in recruiting?   NCAA gonna allow that?  and worst care out of state schools gonna be forced to play professional/college teams in that state?   And of course the issue that no one is addressing...where does the money come from?  higher ticket prices, student fees, wealthy alums and boosters (the likely source) or maybe tV revenue which might be attractive for a dozen of the schools at most?   

JMO but the idiots in California are gonna ruin a great system that gives tens of thousands of in-state students a free college education in order to help a handful of exceptional athletes who "might" be able to make some outside money.  This whole legislative issue sounds like something that Lavar Ball would be bankrolling. 

Also funny that you'd mention lavar ball, I imagine you have disdain for him but he actually shows what can be......omg a family who has made millions off of their talent.....gotta hate that....and they still let the NCAA have some of it. Don't compare them to the mannings though.....they're breaking the chains so you gotta dislike it

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Other than no competes and such, most big businesses aren't telling their employees that they can't take advantage of alternate revenue streams. A lot of those people building cars at GM- like a lot of college students who get academic or art scholarships- are allowed to have a side hustle. 

Oh I agree wholeheartedly. Simply responding to the thought that just because someone can’t perform (build, jump, shoot, act,sing, etc) doesn’t mean that the person in charge isn’t deserving of their position within an organization. Just because the people at the head of the organization can’t jump or shoot a ball has absolutely nothing to do with how the business of the product is run. Oh, and I’m not a “rich old guy”. :) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NoALtiger said:

Oh I agree wholeheartedly. Simply responding to the thought that just because someone can’t perform (build, jump, shoot, act,sing, etc) doesn’t mean that the person in charge isn’t deserving of their position within an organization. Just because the people at the head of the organization can’t jump or shoot a ball has absolutely nothing to do with how the business of the product is run. Oh, and I’m not a “rich old guy”. :) 

I am.

Well, I'm one of them, anyway.

Old. Old is the one that I am. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I am.

Well, I'm one of them, anyway.

Old. Old is the one that I am. 

And your a guy so there's that. As Meatloaf says two out of three ain't bad. ;)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, McLoofus said:

No, I'm not joking.

By all means, illuminate me on the math. 

Does your wife do the family budget?   

Well if you can't do the math, just consider that there are about 300 scholarship athletes at most Div 1 schools... AU and say you give each one an additional "salary" of $25,000 which is quite modest I guess... that would be about $ 8 million perhaps in addition to the cost of scholarships which is at least that much... and lets multiply that times the 300 Div 1 schools ….which would make that cost to be …5 billion give or take?    and then there are the Div II schools.

Meanwhile, no matter what you think about Emmert....or whoever else has that job....the salary is barely a rounding error in the amount of money spent on college sports that passes through the NCAA.....since most of the money is collected and spent by individual schools.  . 

This should make interesting reading if you want to get a general picture of the math........... http://www.ncaa.org/about/where-does-money-go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, McLoofus said:

In a thread dedicated to the CEO of the NCAA making almost $4 million a year, you're asking where the money's going to come from? 

As hesitant as I am to tip-toe into the maw here, I think some of the resistance that folks in general have to the CEO salaries of large corporations, while certainly understandable, doesn’t always make the most sense. When you compare Emmert’s salary to the salaries of CEOs of organizations with comparable revenue, I think you’d find it to be substantially less. I’m not going to argue that he’s missing meals, but I believe the NCAA, like any other large non-profit has the responsibility to do what it needs to in order to attract the best talent to grow and manage its revenue. I’ll remain agnostic as to whether Emmert should be considered “the best talent”. I don’t know that much about him. But the NCAA, for all its faults, seems to do a very good job of supporting its member programs, the majority of which are non-revenue generating. If that is the primary goal of the NCAA, then I think it’s hard to say that they aren’t accomplishing their mission. I’m not sure they would be able to do that nearly as effectively with a CEO making even in the 6 figure range. And as always, one can certainly dispute what the NCAA mission should be, but then that’s another conversation. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, AuburnArch13 said:

As hesitant as I am to tip-toe into the maw here, I think some of the resistance that folks in general have to the CEO salaries of large corporations, while certainly understandable, doesn’t always make the most sense. When you compare Emmert’s salary to the salaries of CEOs of organizations with comparable revenue, I think you’d find it to be substantially less. I’m not going to argue that he’s missing meals, but I believe the NCAA, like any other large non-profit has the responsibility to do what it needs to in order to attract the best talent to grow and manage its revenue. I’ll remain agnostic as to whether Emmert should be considered “the best talent”. I don’t know that much about him. But the NCAA, for all its faults, seems to do a very good job of supporting its member programs, the majority of which are non-revenue generating. If that is the primary goal of the NCAA, then I think it’s hard to say that they aren’t accomplishing their mission. I’m not sure they would be able to do that nearly as effectively with a CEO making even in the 6 figure range. And as always, one can certainly dispute what the NCAA mission should be, but then that’s another conversation. 

All good points, but the real issue isn't that Emmert gets paid a lot. He probably earns his money as much as any CEO does. The issue is that the NCAA and membership institutions are profiting off of many of the athletes far beyond what those athletes are receiving in return.

So why is Emmert's raise news? Because there are a lot of people making up a lot of reasons why players should not receive any additional benefits while everyone else in the industry- all of them less essential to sports actually being played- makes more and more money every year. I don't know that anybody really has a problem with somebody of Emmert's station making a lot of money.

Worst of all, perhaps, those athletes are not allowed to profit off of their own name or likeness. And the NCAA works tirelessly to make sure that it remains a monopoly and that athletes have no other legitimate path to earning a living using their talents. That's where talk of slavery comes in and why it is not unreasonable at all. 

The raise comes across as hypocritical. 

Edited by McLoofus
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, AU64 said:

Does your wife do the family budget?   

Well if you can't do the math, just consider that there are about 300 scholarship athletes at most Div 1 schools... AU and say you give each one an additional "salary" of $25,000 which is quite modest I guess... that would be about $ 8 million perhaps in addition to the cost of scholarships which is at least that much... and lets multiply that times the 300 Div 1 schools ….which would make that cost to be …5 billion give or take?    and then there are the Div II schools.

Meanwhile, no matter what you think about Emmert....or whoever else has that job....the salary is barely a rounding error in the amount of money spent on college sports that passes through the NCAA.....since most of the money is collected and spent by individual schools.  . 

This should make interesting reading if you want to get a general picture of the math........... http://www.ncaa.org/about/where-does-money-go

Lol. I can make up my own math just as easily as you can. I didn't realize that you were just making up big numbers and throwing them around to suit your narrative but I should have guessed. That's on me.

But yeah, if you think that what you just made up is what people are suggesting, then I can see why you are freaking out so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Student wondering about money.....shut up and be happy with your scholarship. This guy makes 4,000,000 he's really not making that much.....😏

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2019 at 7:33 AM, McLoofus said:

Worst of all, perhaps, those athletes are not allowed to profit off of their own name or likeness. And the NCAA works tirelessly to make sure that it remains a monopoly and that athletes have no other legitimate path to earning a living using their talents. That's where talk of slavery comes in and why it is not unreasonable at all. 

It's amazing that you have to connect the dots of this analogy for some. Like people can't get past the idea that it doesn't mean keeping the athletes in literal chains but the parallel being that the system is quite literally holding athletes down limiting their earning potential. SMH all while the marketplace wants to compensate them for their elite talent level.

Edited by Tiger
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tiger said:

It's amazing that you have to connect the dots of this analogy for some. Like people can't get past the idea that it doesn't mean keeping the athletes in literal chains but the parallel being that the system is quite literally holding athletes down limiting their earning potential. SMH all while that the marketplace wants to compensate them for their elite talent level.

And why do these people even care? What does Joe Fanatic lose? Almost none of these pearl clutchers have any skin in the game whatsoever. It's just like the transfer thing. Just being afraid of change for the sake of it, I guess.

Actually, some of the more vocal opponents to both- funny how it's always the same people opposing any enhanced benefits for the players (while simultaneously blaming them for all of our problems on the field instead of their head coach)- would also rather plan on losing 4-5 games every year than risk a coaching change. This, despite the fact that we've shown every single time that we immediately get much better after coaching changes. 

Not sure why they are so opposed to making things better for the players and so reluctant to hold the head coach accountable for his mistakes. I can only guess. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

And why do these people even care? What does Joe Fanatic lose? Almost none of these pearl clutchers have any skin in the game whatsoever. It's just like the transfer thing. Just being afraid of change for the sake of it, I guess.

Actually, some of the more vocal opponents to both- funny how it's always the same people opposing any enhanced benefits for the players (while simultaneously blaming them for all of our problems on the field instead of their head coach)- would also rather plan on losing 4-5 games every year than risk a coaching change. This, despite the fact that we've shown every single time that we immediately get much better after coaching changes. 

Not sure why they are so opposed to making things better for the players and so reluctant to hold the head coach accountable for his mistakes. I can only guess. 

Right, it's bizarre. One day people will look back at this current structure and be wonder how it ever lasted this long. Nobody is going to lose anything by letting kids capitalize on their likeness or accepting whatever the open market is willing to pay them for being a spokesperson or appearing in a commercial. Especially not fans.

Scared of change is about the only way you can describe it. And that is at it's best. At it's worst it's got a much uglier face behind the mask of wanting to keep things as is.

Edited by Tiger
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think paying college player or letting them make money in open market will change player/recruits being pay by fans/boosters. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...